Allowed

Aris v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/24547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition drawing a parallel where the petitioner claimed a prior grant of land by Panchayath and subsequent payment of taxes for property allegedly classified as Gomala land, preventing jurisdictional eviction notice to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The eviction notice No.LND(KA)130/2024-25 issued by Respondent No.2 is quashed. Petitioner is directed to appear for inquiry and Tahasildar is to pass orders within three months.

Aris Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38148 WP No. 24547 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24547 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ARIS S/O H.HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT ACHANGI HALASULIGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

TAHASILDAR

¶16

EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE OFFICE ADALITHA SOUDHA, SAKALESHPURA, SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION SAKALESHPURA SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RADHA B.P., AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38148 WP No. 24547 of 2024

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AT ANNX-B BEARING NO.LND(KA)130/2024-25 DATED 04.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR R-2 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents No.1 to 3.

¶26

The petitioner asserts ownership and possession of a property identified as site No.5468/407, Ward No.21 measuring 65 x 45 located at Achangi, Sakaleshpura Town, Hassan District. The petitioner claims that this property was allocated by the Malali Mandal Panchayath in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner contends that a house has been constructed on this land, and that he has been consistently paying property tax to the Gram Panchayath. This is substantiated by property tax register marked as Annexure-A. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that he

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38148 WP No. 24547 of 2024

¶28

has obtained an electricity connection for the property and has been regularly paying the associated bills.

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of a show cause notice by Respondent No.2, acting under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The petitioner argues that this notice, which appears to be an eviction order in its final form, was issued without any prior inquiry. This lack of inquiry is a central point of contention for the petitioner, who argues that such an eviction notice is legally unsustainable in its current form.

¶30

In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) has presented a counter-argument, drawing the Court’s attention to the fact that the disputed property is part of what is known as Gomala land. The AGA contends that the documents upon which the petitioner is basing their claim of title are not valid, as the Gram Panchayath does not have jurisdiction over Gomala land. It is argued that the Gram Panchayath lacks the authority to divert revenue land for other uses, and any

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:38148 WP No. 24547 of 2024

¶33

such allocation or grant made by the Panchayath is therefore without legal standing and jurisdiction.

¶34

The petitioner’s counsel has referenced a previous judgment from this Court, where in a similar case, it was determined that an eviction notice issued without a prior inquiry was not sustainable. In that instance, the Court directed that the eviction notice should be treated as a show cause notice, thereby giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before any final order was passed.

¶35

In the present case, the facts appear to be strikingly similar. The eviction notice issued by Respondent No.2 also seems to have been issued without conducting a prior inquiry. The documents submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition indicate, at least on a prima facie basis, that the petitioner’s claim to the property is rooted in a grant or allotment made by the Gram Panchayath. The petitioner must be given an opportunity to prove that the property in question is not part of

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38148 WP No. 24547 of 2024

¶37

Gomala land. Simultaneously, it is incumbent upon Respondent No.2 to thoroughly verify whether the disputed property is indeed part of Gomala land. Only after such a detailed inquiry, in which the petitioner is given a fair chance to present evidence, should Respondent No.2 proceed to pass any orders. Prima facie , the impugned eviction notice, having been issued without an inquiry, is unsustainable.

¶38

For the reasons stated above, this Court passes the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

ii. The impugned eviction notice bearing No.LND(KA):130/2024-25 dated 04.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 - Tahasildar as per Annexure-B is hereby quashed.

¶42

iii. The petitioner shall appear before Respondent No.2/Tahasildar on 14.10.2024. The petitioner is at liberty to submit all

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38148 WP No. 24547 of 2024

¶44

relevant documents in support of his contention.

¶45

iv. Respondent No.2/Tahasildar, after hearing the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Until such time, Respondent No.2/Tahasildar shall not take any further action.

¶46

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶47

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Aris v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aris v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Thimmakka Vs Sri. Girish

Niveditha K S Vs the State of Karnataka

K G Pillamadappa Vs Chikka Nanjundappa

Sri. Satyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Galappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Punith S Vs State of Karnataka